Search This Blog

A Question For Any Person From the U.S. Who Know About Foreclosures

I have been searching for the longest time for an answer to the following question about foreclosures in the U.S., and I wonder whether you can help with an answer.

I am in England and the law about foreclosures is as follows:
If the bank wants to kick out the owner for non-payment then the bank goes to court and gets an order that allows it to sell the property. It sells the property as 'mortgagee in possession'.

Or, if the owner just hands the keys over to the bank to enable the bank to sell, then again the bank sells the property as mortgagee in possession.

The important point is that if there is any surplus after the bank has paid itself off, then that surplus goes to the owner (assuming there are not any second mortgages on the property, in which case the surplus goes to the second mortgagee, and any surplus after that goes to the owner).

I know that the likelihood is that there will not be a surplus in many situations, but suppose there is...

Now there is another way that a bank can take back the property in England, and that is to foreclose. If it does that, then any surplus after it pays itself off does NOT go to the owner. Instead, the bank keeps it for itself.

However, at any time before, or up to six months after the sale, the owner can apply to court to have the foreclosure changed into a sale as mortgagee in possession.

Banks in England do not go the foreclosure route.

Apart from having the owner being able to get the court to overturn the foreclosure and turn it into a sale where the surplus goes to the owner, it would also make banks very (or even more) unpopular with the general population and the media.

So, how does foreclosure operate in the U.S.? Who gets the surplus?

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Labels

Popular posts from this blog

After looking at an article on InsightScope about contest giveaways, I just read the FAQs for one of the tools, which is KingSumo Giveaway and I see that as at the time the FAQs were prepared, the tool doesn't integrate with Mailchimp. Instead you have to download a CSV and upload.Also, there is a warning that the tool may not be compatible with Facebook's terms in the future.Finally, there is a long, convoluted way you have to deal with duplicate content, which is described in the FAQs as follows:
I’m concerned about duplicate pages for SEO
We don’t create new pages, just add a parameter to your URLS. Google just sees the original page and URL structure. What we recommend if Google results are important is to run the tool, then once it looks like a winner I’d change the Title to the winner and the original URL. Remove the other titles. We are working on a fix to make this easier.Advanced users:Utilize the parameter tools in Google’s Webmaster Tools and set the Headline plugi…

I've been using MarsEdit for just over seven years. I started with version 2, and then upgraded to version 3 in 2010.Now, in 2018, I just upgraded to version 4. This is my first post with the upgrade and I'll report on it in a little while as I get used to the new version.Here is what Daniel of Red Sweater Software has to say about his product:Browser-based interfaces are slow, clumsy, and require you to be online just to use them. Browsers are perfect for reading web content, but not ideal for creating it. If you're serious about writing for the web, you need a desktop blog editor. If you're lucky enough to have a Mac, nothing is more powerful, or more elegant than MarsEditRich and Plain Text Editing
MarsEdit's editor switches easily from Plain to Rich Text, so you can work in whichever format you prefer. Love Markdown? MarsEdit can preview it and convert it to HTML if needed.Wildly Compatible
Works with WordPress, Blogger, Tumblr, TypePad, Movable Type, and any …

LONDON — Is British business fretting about the risks of the country drifting out of the European Union? Or does it crave a looser relationship with Continental allies, one free from meddlesome regulation?The answer to that question remained unclear Monday after a newly formed group of business leaders argued for a renegotiation of Britain’s membership terms — echoing the policy of Prime Minister David Cameron, who in January promised voters a referendum on whether the country would remain in the Union.The new group, called Business for Britain, is intended to counter the intervention of pro-E.U. business leaders who have warned of the dangers of Britain slipping out of the 27-nation bloc and its single market of 500 million people. A statement released Monday to announce the group’s formation was signed by about 500 executives.
I think this opinion in the New York Times article is interesting:

About Me

It will be a Tuesday, around 11am. He (or 'she') will get up from his desk and walk out because he isn't going to do this any more. He will walk out onto the street. He will be struck by how strongly he feels that he is going to do this.

He is going to stop the merry-go-round of the office and this way of doing things. He sees the whole structure and he isn't going to be part of it. There has to be a better way.

He feels slightly dazed, but his heart pounds when he reaches the street and finds that many, many people are there, standing like he is standing, drinking it in.

Favourite Quote

My favourite quote is a long one - so if you are looking for something short and catchy, you might want to skip this.

The quote is from Isaiah Berlin's 1957 Herbert Samuel lecture on Chaim Weizman, in which Berlin said:

“Weizman had all his life believed that when great public issues are joined one must above all take sides; whatever one did, one must not remain neutral or uncommitted, one must always - as an absolute duty - identify oneself with some living force in the world, and take part in the world’s affairs with all the risk of blame and misrepresentation and misunderstanding of one’s motives and character which this almost invariably entails.

Consequently .. he (Weizman) called for no compromise, and denounced those who did. He regarded with contempt the withdrawal from life on the part of those to whom their personal integrity, or peace of mind, or purity of ideal, mattered more than the work upon which they are engaged and to which they were engaged and to which they were committed, the artistic, or scientific, or social, or political, or purely personal enterprises in which all men are willy-nilly involved.

He did not condone the abandonment of ultimate principles before the claims of expediency or of anything else; but political monasticism - a search for some private cave of Adullam to avoid being disappointed or tarnished, the taking up of consciously utopian or politically impossible positions, in order to remain true to some inner voice, or some unbreakable principle too pure for the wicked public world - that seemed to him a mixture of weakness and self-conceit, foolish and despicable.”